Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$543.73
▲ $13.21 (+2.5%)
Market data updated: 09/18 05:22 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$23.25B
Day Range
$539.31 - $547.50
52-Week Range
$443.60 - $714.97
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.12.2026
ULTA is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+3.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/31 factors positiveRisk: Medium
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $420.29 vs. price $543.73 (-22.7%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
59
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
53
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
55
Risk
48
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
70
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING ULTA...
Recent media coverage of Ulta Beauty has centered on its stock performance and investor sentiment, with analysts like Goldman Sachs and Loop Capital adjusting price targets slightly ($673 and $570, respectively) while maintaining mixed ratings (Buy and Hold). Additionally, the company faced backlash over its use of Flock automated license plate reader technology at stores, sparking online criticism. Ulta also announced participation in an upcoming investor conference, while broader retail stock comparisons—including with WOOF—dominated market discussions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ulta Beauty. News trend score: 92. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
22
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
29
Fundamentals
70
Technical
55
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price (3M)
+20%
Market Narrative
71
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+29
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ULTA’s market behavior suggests a dominant herd mentality, where traders align with peers despite a slight underperformance. Euphoria and overconfidence coexist due to strong momentum and valuation premiums, while anchoring hints at resistance-based decision-making. The narrative gap (35) implies traders overestimate positive narratives relative to fundamentals. The key question: will momentum sustain or reverse as traders reassess fair value?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:30 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Goldman Sachs adjusted Ulta Beauty price target to $673 from $667"
"Ulta Beauty to Participate in Upcoming Investor Conference"
"Ulta Beauty beat earnings estimates and raised guidance, but shares wavered"
📈 12D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Morgan Housel — 66/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for ULTA reveal a stark divide between cautious and dismissive approaches. The highest-scoring models—Jesse Livermore (68) and Morgan Housel (64)—still flag this stock as either ambiguous or merely ‘holdable,’ reflecting a reluctance to commit without clearer directional signals. In contrast, the value-oriented frameworks, particularly Benjamin Graham’s (26) and Nelson’s (7), paint a far bleaker picture, dismissing it as overbought or statistically unattractive, while Fisher (46) and Lynch (28) reject it for lacking the growth or pricing discipline they demand. Meanwhile, behavioral economists like Mackay (46) and Veblen (38) spot speculative tendencies, while the efficient-market camp (52) sees no compelling reason to deviate from passive indexing. The middle-ground thinkers—like Marks (44) and Loeb (53)—acknowledge potential merits but temper optimism with concerns about inflated expectations or cyclical positioning.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 66
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 63
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 60
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 58
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 54
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 52
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 46
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 38
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 38
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 28
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 26
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 20
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 19
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 17
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 4 bearish · 2 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
39.1%
Operating Margin
12.4%
Net Margin
9.3%
EBITDA Margin
14.8%
ROE
41.1%
ROA
16.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$25.72
Cash
$424.24M
Total Debt
$62.29M
Current Ratio
1.41
Debt/Equity
0.02
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$543.73
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$420.29
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-22.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
6.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.8% | $1.14B | $1.05B |
| 2 | 5.7% | $1.21B | $1.01B |
| 3 | 4.6% | $1.26B | $973.66M |
| 4 | 3.6% | $1.31B | $925.11M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.34B | $869.94M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.07B
Terminal Value
$21.11B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$13.72B
Enterprise Value
$18.55B
Net Debt
$-361.96M
Equity Value
$18.91B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$62.31
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$57.28
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 9 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
MarketBeat · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Ulta Beauty (ULTA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ULTA currently scores 59/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ULTA's estimated fair value is $420.29, which is 22.7% below the current price of $543.73. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ULTA's technical score is 55/100, which currently reads as neutral — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 41.1% — strong; Debt/equity: 0.02.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $420.29 vs. price $543.73 (-22.7%); Calmar: 0.23 (3y annualized return 10.2% / max drawdown 44.6%); Net income growth: -4.0%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ULTA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GARCIA KELLY E | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 3,565 | +3,565 | — |
| GARCIA KELLY E | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 2,933 | +2,933 | — |
| Olson Brieane Lee | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 271 | +271 | — |
| MRKONIC GEORGE R JR | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 383 | -383 | $475.84 |
| MRKONIC GEORGE R JR | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 2,404 | -383 | $475.84 |
| Halligan Catherine Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| Smith Mike C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| Landry Stephenie Lee | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| Nagler Lorna | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| LITTLE PATRICIA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| Brok Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| MRKONIC GEORGE R JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| GARCIA KELLY E | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| Ruiz Gisel | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 404 | +404 | — |
| MRKONIC GEORGE R JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 2,787 | +404 | — |
| Brok Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 1,681 | +404 | — |
| GARCIA KELLY E | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 2,150 | +404 | — |
| Halligan Catherine Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 2,464 | +404 | — |
| Landry Stephenie Lee | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 681 | +404 | — |
| LITTLE PATRICIA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 1,670 | +404 | — |
| Nagler Lorna | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 7,768 | +404 | — |
| Ruiz Gisel | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 787 | +404 | — |
| Smith Mike C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 2,667 | +404 | — |
| MRKONIC GEORGE R JR | Open Market Sale | 7.4.2026 | 452 | -452 | $539.29 |
| MRKONIC GEORGE R JR | Open Market Sale | 7.4.2026 | 2,383 | -452 | $539.29 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,240,450 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,309,219 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
71.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 70.1% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology